Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Would you mind explaining why? What don't you like about Paul specifically?
@Mathiäs Please explain. I'm just looking for some reasoning behind these statements.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Would you mind explaining why? What don't you like about Paul specifically?
@Mathiäs Please explain. I'm just looking for some reasoning behind these statements.
Ron Paul is a god damned moron. If you can't pick that up from any of his interviews* then you need some serious help.
*As in anything other than that cheap debate Fox threw together which nearly every repub who is running said "fuck it".
*As in anything other than that cheap debate Fox threw together which nearly every repub who is running said "fuck it".
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
two words: gold standard.
one more, actually...an acronym: lol
he's also kind of a moron on social issues, some of which are very important to me:
lol. seriously, no.
one more, actually...an acronym: lol
he's also kind of a moron on social issues, some of which are very important to me:
lol. seriously, no.
Dak
mentat
While i have a seperate issue with the "Mises" approach to money, it is still superior to our current monetary/banking system, which is money as debt. Paul is the only politician with a lengthy, consistent voting record to run on a platform that removes the monetary system from being debt based.
Secondly, what the fuck do the two statements you quoted have to do with his voting record on actual policies?
Or I could respond like Pessimism on this and paraphrase to: "Only morons don't like Ron Paul!!!1!!1!"
I am no longer personally "enchanted" with RP, but no politician currently in the Federal Government is more consistent and sane. I agree with RP than any other politician, but unfortunately that isn't saying much. But to call him insane or scary just shows how out of touch with reality some of you are.
Secondly, what the fuck do the two statements you quoted have to do with his voting record on actual policies?
Or I could respond like Pessimism on this and paraphrase to: "Only morons don't like Ron Paul!!!1!!1!"
I am no longer personally "enchanted" with RP, but no politician currently in the Federal Government is more consistent and sane. I agree with RP than any other politician, but unfortunately that isn't saying much. But to call him insane or scary just shows how out of touch with reality some of you are.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 133
- 63
Would you mind explaining in a bit of detail what you take issue with in those quotes you posted? I'm not saying there's nothing objectionable there, but I'd like to know exactly what your issue is.
Badbird
Never banned
Worst things about Ron Paul:
Get rid of income tax
Is a racist
gold standard
social issues
Anything that not about wars, drugs, and maybe the fed.
The guy a Palo-Conservative, not a libertarian.
Get rid of income tax
Is a racist
gold standard
social issues
Anything that not about wars, drugs, and maybe the fed.
The guy a Palo-Conservative, not a libertarian.
Dak
mentat
WHy is this bad? As we established before, you have no idea what the income tax even pays for.
Most of our presidents have been racist, or have done or said things that could be construed as such. Where were you when Obama's patronization of Jeremiah Wright's church came to light? Years of regular attendance to hear a man call white people the devil is much more concerning than a handful of articles in a newsletter that were possibly as much under RP's control as the Tea Party (not much).
This is also a concern to me, but I am sure for entirely different reasons. Metal as money is not the worst thing ever, and is highly preferrable to the Keynesian, fractional reserve, privately run and profited fiat system we have now.
?? RP doesn't believe in federal government involvement in most social issues. So your view must be that they need to be. That's cool. So hopefully they get involved in a way that you don't like.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Blatant worship of the Constitution as though it's holy writ is one of his problems, as well as that of hundreds of other politicians. I'm not saying that it should be totally disregarded, but if people begin voicing dissent about its contents, we shouldn't be offended or repulsed by the suggestion of seriously reconsidering what it says or doesn't say. I'm not sure if Paul is just disregarding the First Amendment, or if he thinks that because it doesn't specifically say "separation of church and state" then it obviously is unconstitutional; but even if it isn't specifically stated, it warrants some discussion. This is what critical thinking is all about. People seem to think it inconceivable that one day we might look back at the Constitution and point out its flaws. It's not a flawless document. It was written by human beings.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Human beings who were politicians, who had politics in mind when they wrote it. That's also important to note.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Why exactly would you say this? You really have an overzealous tendency to be harsh and cruel to those who disagree, probably worse than I ever was (namely, before you ever came here, although not as bad as Prismatic Sphere). Have you ever considered leaving ad hominems out of your arguments (even if, granted, some of the counterarguments are, gasp, stupid)?
You want proof of his utter social retardation, fine, be my guest:
On Abortion
Right out the door he opposes a womans right to choose and justifying it through the lens of religion.
Not only is he anti-gay...
... but he actually supports creating an amendment to highlight his dislike.
Instead of fixing the education system, he proposes to give parents a bigger role to teaching them themselves, because it's not like both parents might have jobs or anything! And on top of that, he has stated that he wants to limit regulation for those who homeschool!
On top of that, he likes vouchers and wants to create a very large disconnect across the academic platform!
No, you do not have to oppose federal funding. No Child Left Behind was a shitty fucking act, and just because you want it repealed does not mean you need to deny federal funding.
Let's take a look at some of his energy policies:
HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, because the EPA is such a downer for business. I'm sure the companies that employ the miners have their backs... oh wait no they don't - the entirety of this last year proves that point.
Our energy crisis does not stem from "the federal government being bad" alone, it in fact stems from a combination of the tools in the federal government working in conjunction with the special interest groups and lobbyists for massive energy corporations. When John Boehner, during one of the open sessions of congress during these last six months was able to walk down the isles during a Dem speech and hand out checks from an oil company, you know shit has gone too far. But that isn't an indicator that the system itself is flawed, it's an indicator that the people who are working for the system are flawed. And technically, this is a fault that can be replicated in all elected governments.
He also wants to raise the retirement age (specifically for younger people), apparently to offset medicare and social security. What a great idea! Much better than stopping the actual problem, which is tied to the overspending of the military budget and other bloated program. We can just raise our retirement age to 70! that way, the average male can enjoy the 5 fucking years of life they have left to live on average.
Also,
Also, he's for the Bush tax cuts
Now, he does have some good points, everyone usually does though. But to take those points with the rest of this package? You've got to be a fucking idiot.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Badbird
Never banned
Obama stress this issue and stay away from his church. This issue is non news and Wright was a asshole for it.
If you look at pre Fed era, you will see that we had more depressions then what happened in the Federal Reserve. Sure we had the Great Depression under the Fed but were lucky that we are living in post 1800's where we just had major recessions since Great Depression era.
See what Pessimism posted about Ron Paul and government involvement in social issues.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dak
mentat
Wants to remove government from stealing to support things they should have no involvement in anyway: Check.
I find your concern over homeschoolers amusing and uninformed. Having been homeschooled, I do have an advantage in seeing this from the other side.
Last I checked, homeschooled children regularly outperform their peers not only while still in K-12, but also once moving on into traditional secondary education. Oversight has nothing to do with it, just as oversight hasn't assisted in raising public education's poor quality product.
Regardless on a person's position on "pro-life vs "pro-choice", government funding (read: stealing from one to pay for something for someone else) for either side should not be supported.
I don't agree with him on the marriage thing, not because I support "gay marriage", but because there should be no government intervention anyway. However, in the multitude of other much more serious issues, I consider this a minor thing. And IB4: If I were to be gay, then I wouldn't care any more or less, since there shouldn't be any government definition or involvement, marriage licenses, etc. etc.
Both the system and the people are flawed. The EPA doesn't do the job as intended, neither do any of the other government agencies, and no government agency outside the military ever does, or at the least, not for very long.
I am pretty sure he is on record on wanting to end those programs altogether, but that's not really a political possibility currently, thanks to the millions of voters with no understanding of economics, money.......or anything else important (thank you, public education).
Any fix to these flawed-from-inception programs is going to still be flawed. It's hardly RP's fault he can't put the sacred pigs out of their misery. Also, he doesn't oppose cuts to the money received because the doctors have to provide care regardless. It's absolutely ridiculous to force a business to provide a service, and then on top of it not allow for reimbursment from the same authority.
The actual arguments on the budget issue are also all flawed from the get go. Our money system is rotten at the core, and until that is corrected, budget games/fiscal concerns/etc. are merely addressing symptoms instead of the cause.
The military budget could be scaled way back by pulling out of the hundreds of countries we are in and not supporting this global military "empire", without cutting personnel/equipment/R&D/procurement/etc.
@Dodens: I'm not sure what is so mean about what I said. Some people don't understand until they "get a dose of their own medicine". Or maybe I'm giving to much credit and they actually do understand and have a malevolent nature.
@Einherjar: I agree, the Constitution is not perfect, but on a practical level it's been basically null since 1861, and definitely since 1913, so both sides of Constitutional debates are mostly wasting their time.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 133
- 63
First of all, the things you're citing here are Rand Paul's views. Weren't you talking about Ron Paul before? I'm confused. Granted, they both have fairly similar views, but Ron Paul has always struck me as a bit more sophisticated in the way he justifies some of his positions. Anyway, read more carefully I guess? There are at least two guys with the last name Paul in the world.
As to your comment above, where exactly is there any mention of or reliance upon religious or spiritual concepts in the quote you provided? I don't see it. Anyway, I don't see how disagreeing with you on the issue of abortion rights is evidence of "utter social retardation" (personally, I find your suggestion rather offensive).
Also, tone your language down. You come across as a pissed off ideologue.
Preface:
I flat out mislabeled Rand as Ron, in fact I think I read Ron as Rand earlier! It's probably because I have been tracking his name everywhere, and he has been getting far more news coverage than his father as of late. I assure everyone here that I am talking about Rand though. Every statement I have made was specifically made toward Rand Paul, not Ron.
To clarify: I meant Rand Paul. Not Ron Paul.
-----------------------------------------------
@Dak.
We will always argue on what the government should or should not be doing, so I will just skip that. We do not need any more lessons in futility.
I'll agree that the EPA doesn't do its job up to its full potential, and that is a pretty factual assessment since the EPA is a neutered version of every other countries environmental agency respectively. But Rand wants to actually get rid of regulation, not curb it, not regulate it more efficiently - no - he wants to get rid of it. Corporations by default in a capitalist system, where the earning of money is top priority, will not regulate themselves to the degree that needs to be done. This has been proven month after month since the inception of the corporation as an entity. I'll end this here for the reason I listed in my opening statement toward you.
As for homeschooling, it's really a mixed bag. Rand himself, as quoted above, states that he wants to limit the regulation of homeschooling. Every single state in this country has strict regulations to keep home-schooled children up to par, specifically content wise. Every home-schooled child in the United States still has some form of regulation, either with accredited tutors or with private institutions. The fact is that the quality of the homeschooling is directly proportional to the attention one receives from said tutor. It has little to do with the ineptness of the public institution as a medium, and has more to do with the parent/teacher/student ratio that is being in effect. I have little doubt that a teacher will be infinitely more effective than a parent in a one on one session. The simple fact is that a parent is not teaching a classroom of 50+ students, which is where the problem lies.
----And yes, I am not going to deny that there are problems with larger academic systems, especially in regard to the whole "lowering of the bar". But that is not a flaw of the medium, it is a flaw of how we are working the medium. It wasn't meant to bear the heavy load we've placed on it. If the ratios here were equal (one parent to one or two students/one accredited/experienced teacher to one or two students), the "benefit" of home-schooling wouldn't exist. And before you tout about having experience in this field so you know better, I too have experience in this. By the very different nature of every single teacher and perspective, there would exist no uniformity across the spectrum if there were no regulation. The fact is there does exist heavy regulating for homeschooling, and that most "positives" that are seen can be credited to other variables (such as one on one face time, better access to materials, etc.)
Ultimately we will always disagree Dak. I am egalitarian by nature (not to say you are not), and fully support the protection and betterment of the populace by most any means necessary. I have no preference for a certain political or economic system; and if that government is invasive or limited doesn't really matter to me if it can achieve my desired results. If it works then it works. I will however state that I do not care for the capitalist system. I will also state that I do realize that my conception is very very prone to abuse in the real world, and thus can never be implemented, unless of course it was done by a benevolent leader who also happened to be immortal.
@Cyth": Dude, citations are in each quote:
Abortion: Source: Campaign website, www.randpaul2010.com, "Issues" Jul 19, 2010
And you mentioned loaded terminology on my part. Well, let's point it out here:
And I damn well know you saw that language in the quote and knew what it meant. If you wish to play coy, then here is a harder citation. He is basing his decisions off of religious standings, which is a large negative to me. This country has enough of a theocratic slant to it, and it doesn't need any more to help skew it further.
And frankly, I am pissed off Cyth. I'm not trying to win any supporters, in most instances I am venting or playing devils advocate. Frankly I've also grown tired of writing academically; sometimes I like to inject a little personality/flavor into writing, and sometimes zealous anger just fits. The impartialness of the ivory writing, although absolutely important, has left me aesthetically dry. Perhaps I've read too much Feyerabend. But like I said, I'm not writing to win supporters of any sort, and I'm certainly not writing for some bullshit journal. Mostly I write for me.
As to the offense, don't take it personally. Most people would hide behind the anonymity of the internet - I do not give a shit. You would probably find me offensive in a real life meeting. Either way, have you never in your life flat out called someone stupid for something? Ontological facts do exist, and sometimes a person can just be wrong (especially when fact-checked against their own metaphysical system; ex: a Christian who vehemently fights helping the poor). Objective facts also exist; ex: The faster you approach the speed of light, the less red-shifter an object is/more blue-shifted an object becomes.
I flat out mislabeled Rand as Ron, in fact I think I read Ron as Rand earlier! It's probably because I have been tracking his name everywhere, and he has been getting far more news coverage than his father as of late. I assure everyone here that I am talking about Rand though. Every statement I have made was specifically made toward Rand Paul, not Ron.
To clarify: I meant Rand Paul. Not Ron Paul.
-----------------------------------------------
@Dak.
We will always argue on what the government should or should not be doing, so I will just skip that. We do not need any more lessons in futility.
I'll agree that the EPA doesn't do its job up to its full potential, and that is a pretty factual assessment since the EPA is a neutered version of every other countries environmental agency respectively. But Rand wants to actually get rid of regulation, not curb it, not regulate it more efficiently - no - he wants to get rid of it. Corporations by default in a capitalist system, where the earning of money is top priority, will not regulate themselves to the degree that needs to be done. This has been proven month after month since the inception of the corporation as an entity. I'll end this here for the reason I listed in my opening statement toward you.
As for homeschooling, it's really a mixed bag. Rand himself, as quoted above, states that he wants to limit the regulation of homeschooling. Every single state in this country has strict regulations to keep home-schooled children up to par, specifically content wise. Every home-schooled child in the United States still has some form of regulation, either with accredited tutors or with private institutions. The fact is that the quality of the homeschooling is directly proportional to the attention one receives from said tutor. It has little to do with the ineptness of the public institution as a medium, and has more to do with the parent/teacher/student ratio that is being in effect. I have little doubt that a teacher will be infinitely more effective than a parent in a one on one session. The simple fact is that a parent is not teaching a classroom of 50+ students, which is where the problem lies.
----And yes, I am not going to deny that there are problems with larger academic systems, especially in regard to the whole "lowering of the bar". But that is not a flaw of the medium, it is a flaw of how we are working the medium. It wasn't meant to bear the heavy load we've placed on it. If the ratios here were equal (one parent to one or two students/one accredited/experienced teacher to one or two students), the "benefit" of home-schooling wouldn't exist. And before you tout about having experience in this field so you know better, I too have experience in this. By the very different nature of every single teacher and perspective, there would exist no uniformity across the spectrum if there were no regulation. The fact is there does exist heavy regulating for homeschooling, and that most "positives" that are seen can be credited to other variables (such as one on one face time, better access to materials, etc.)
Ultimately we will always disagree Dak. I am egalitarian by nature (not to say you are not), and fully support the protection and betterment of the populace by most any means necessary. I have no preference for a certain political or economic system; and if that government is invasive or limited doesn't really matter to me if it can achieve my desired results. If it works then it works. I will however state that I do not care for the capitalist system. I will also state that I do realize that my conception is very very prone to abuse in the real world, and thus can never be implemented, unless of course it was done by a benevolent leader who also happened to be immortal.
@Cyth": Dude, citations are in each quote:
Abortion: Source: Campaign website, www.randpaul2010.com, "Issues" Jul 19, 2010
And you mentioned loaded terminology on my part. Well, let's point it out here:
The above conflates typical Christian "right to life" arguments with the proper role of the government, and then essentially applies the law of transitivity to each of his prefaces. It's sloppy and simple - but effective. My major problem with it is that you could argue for or against these points in either direction. I have other problems of course, specifically with Christianity and its pervasiveness. Granted, we can argue about the influence Christianity has had on secular ethics in the United States and everything; but you and I both know that would take forever.
And I damn well know you saw that language in the quote and knew what it meant. If you wish to play coy, then here is a harder citation. He is basing his decisions off of religious standings, which is a large negative to me. This country has enough of a theocratic slant to it, and it doesn't need any more to help skew it further.
And frankly, I am pissed off Cyth. I'm not trying to win any supporters, in most instances I am venting or playing devils advocate. Frankly I've also grown tired of writing academically; sometimes I like to inject a little personality/flavor into writing, and sometimes zealous anger just fits. The impartialness of the ivory writing, although absolutely important, has left me aesthetically dry. Perhaps I've read too much Feyerabend. But like I said, I'm not writing to win supporters of any sort, and I'm certainly not writing for some bullshit journal. Mostly I write for me.
As to the offense, don't take it personally. Most people would hide behind the anonymity of the internet - I do not give a shit. You would probably find me offensive in a real life meeting. Either way, have you never in your life flat out called someone stupid for something? Ontological facts do exist, and sometimes a person can just be wrong (especially when fact-checked against their own metaphysical system; ex: a Christian who vehemently fights helping the poor). Objective facts also exist; ex: The faster you approach the speed of light, the less red-shifter an object is/more blue-shifted an object becomes.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 133
- 63
Actually, I took that part out of my post before you even posted this, because I decided it wasn't really helpful or important, but whatever.
Sorry but I'm not seeing it. Clearly he thinks the proper role of government is to protect rights, and it would make sense that he sees protecting the right to life as the most basic function of government. It makes perfect sense because the right to life itself is basic in the sense that respecting X's right to life is a necessary condition for X's exercise of any further rights to be possible at all. Seriously, I don't see how anything is being conflated here. What are you claiming? Are you claiming that he's taking a right-to-life argument to simply be an argument for the proper role of government? That doesn't appear to be what's going on at all.
I have almost no idea what you're trying to say there.
Whoa! Hold on, man. That is not evidence that the claims that appeared in the quote are primarily religiously-based. That's a webpage showing that Rand Paul takes a policy position that Christians would find congenial. The page says nothing about why, for instance, he thinks life begins at conception. I honestly thought that page was going to be an actual explanation of Rand Paul's views (btw, I'm not denying that he's a Christian).
Matt
Active Member
Ron Paul is completely unelectable. He'll get very little independent support and moderate republicans wouldn't vote for him either. Rand Paul is far worse, though. He's an utter buffoon.
However, if I had to vote for a republican, I'd give him serious thought. He's not shill for special interests.
However, if I had to vote for a republican, I'd give him serious thought. He's not shill for special interests.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
This is only one mans opinions on shit that we can all debate forever and really doesn't matter, but what about his policies?
I doubt that any reasonable person could successfully dispute the reasonableness of Dr. Paul's opinion (legal and otherwise) on the factual core of the issue.
Where he invites argument, obviously, is his opinion as to "why" certain groups (eg. 'the Left") or individuals strongly support the 'doctrine' of separation of church and state. But his opinion on the motivations of others (which are incomplete) should not obscure the reasonableness of his position on the facts of the matter.
For me, the most interesting aspect of the above excerpt is his deliberate use of the proverbial 'slippery slope' argument to counter/neutralize the 'slippery slope' argument employed by those who hold the opposing postion. As if to say, "I'll see your slippery and raise you a slippery'.
